Long arm / 14th amend / Shoe – MC /
arising under – specific or general / reasonable / challenges
a) Personal jurisdiction pertains to the authority of a court to render a decision that will bring the parties before it. Arises only when you have two parties from different states, or maybe a claim that originates out of state.
b) Note: If Π is bringing multiple claims against Δ, each claim must have p.j. on its own merit. If one doesn’t it has to go to different court.
c) Note: Δ may be subject to minimum contacts jurisdiction in more than one state for a claim that arises from a transaction involving contacts with a number of states. E&E 18
2) State: Does the relevant state long-arm statute confer jurisdiction?
a) FRCP Rule 4k1A– Federal court ordinarily applies the personal jurisdiction statutes (e.g., long-arm statutes) of the state in which it sits, even when the state has not extended personal jurisdiction to its constitutional limits.
i) Authorizes nationwide jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases for the federal courts.
b) Rhode Island Model – Courts authorized to exert jurisdiction to the limits of the Constitution. If this is your statute, you say so and skip straight to the Constitutional analysis.
c) Enumerated Act model – Specifically articulates factual circumstances where courts can exercise personal jurisdiction. Bensusan Restaurant Corporation v. King
i) Uniform Interstate and International Procedure Act
(1) Jurisdiction over acts committed outside the state
(a) 103(a)(1) – transacting business – OK to act outside state and cause effect within
(b) 103(a)(2) – K to supply services or things – OK to act outside state and cause effect within
(c) 103(a)(4) – out of state tortious act – OK to act outside state and cause effect within
(i) NY interpretation: Δ’s tortious conduct must occur in forum state. Feathers, Bensusan
3) Is there traditional jurisidiction – court has jurisdiction regardless of minimum contacts test.
a) Voluntary appearance – if Δ doesn’t challenge personal jurisdiction, and shows up in the forum he’s consented to jurisdiction.
b) Nonresident Δs who don’t object to PJ and answer claim on the merits. They’ve waived their right to object to PJ, even through a collateral attack.
c) State citizens, Milliken v. Meyer (miliken predated Shoe – has nothing to do w/ PJ)
d) Transient jurisdiction –Transient jurisdiction occurs when a nonresident Δ is actually found and served within the forum state, but when the Δ’s presence there is only intended to be brief, and Is unrelated to the controversy raised by Π’s claim. Burnham
i) Burnham v. Supreme Court – Burnham served as Δ in a California action for separation, child support, and spousal support during his brief visit there on business and to visit his children. Justices agreed that CA’s attempt to exercise jurisdiction over Burnham was permissible.
(1) But they split on whether Shoe had to be applied.
(2) 4 Justices – Don’t need to apply Shoe; Pennoyerworks b/c Δ was served in the forum state.
(3) 4 Justices – Got to apply Shoe. But, we’ll set an easier test: has Δ deliberately partaken of “significant benefits provided by the State?”
(4) Justice Brennan suggested the International Shoe may not support transient jurisdiction when the foreign Δ is in the forum state involuntarily or unknowingly. Burnham v. Superior Court
ii) In-state presence procured by fraud will not support personal jurisdiction. Was the Δ’s in-state presence procured by fraud? If so, jurisdiction may not be proper. Wyman v. Newhouse
e) Quasi in rem – Shaffer v. Heitner – jurisdiction over property in forum state – Int’l Shoe minimum contacts test applies to in rem as well as in personam jurisdiction.
(1) Appellant’s seized property did not have sufficient contacts with the state to support Delaware’s assertion of jurisdiction over appellants.
(2) Appellants had neither purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within the state, nor had any reason to expect to be brought before a Delaware court.
f) Forum selection clause – generally enforceable Carnival Cruise Line
g) State domestication statute – state statute which exacts consent from the Δ through corporate registration or non-resident motorist statute. This sort of consent is generally disfavored.
4) Pennoyer v. Neff – Early PJ – Jurisidiction based on physical presence in the forum state.
5) Constitutional – 14th Amendment – forbids the states from “depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” A state would violate this if its courts entered judgment against Δs without following a fair judicial procedure.
6) General Jurisdiction – continuous and systematic
a) Helicopteros – Because the representatives’ causes of action for wrongful death arose out of the crash in Peru, and were not related to t
ontact with SD – brush sales. (E&E p. 15)
vii) On vacation in GA, De Soto tells GA resident-buyer about his car lot back in OH. Buyer request De Soto’s card. Later, GA shows up in OH and buys car from De Soto. Car blows in GA. De Soto’s “casual” and “isolated” contact with OH does not satisfy Shoe b/c it wasn’t a purposeful act intended to take advantage of benefits of conducting business in GA. Meets but-for test, but isn’t deliberate action. (E&E, p. 18, #9)
b) Hess v. Palowski – voluntary act of driving constituted consent to defend suits in the state arising from that act.
c) McGee v. Int’l Life Insurance Company – Sufficient for purposes of due process b/c claim arose out of Δ’s single contact with forum state
(1) Jurisdiction upheld over claim arising out of a single contract solicited in the case.
(2) Suit was based on a contract that had substantial connection with California.
(3) The contract was delivered in California
(4) The premiums were mailed from there
(5) Insured was a resident of California when he died.
(1) Π’s interest in suing in California
(2) Π mailing premiums from California
(3) California’s interest in providing a remedy, and the extent to which the Δ would be inconvenienced.
iii) Big nature and quality case – nature and quality of contact such that CA and plaintiff had strong interest in litigating the case in CA
iv) Hudson, from OH, buys car in NC while on vacation. Gets back to OH, wheels fall off. P.J. not OK in OH b/c car dealer committed no deliberate act that affiliates it w/ OH. (E&E 16)
d) Hanson v. Denckla – purposeful availment
i) “It is essential in each case that there be some act by which the Δ purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.”
Contact – Δ must have purposefully directed his or her actions into the forum state, and enjoyed